INTRODUCTION AND BRIEF DESCRIPTION
A judge of the court of appeal can exercise the powers of the court with the consent of the parties.
SECTION WORDING
680(2) On consent of the parties, the powers of the court of appeal under subsection (1) may be exercised by a judge of that court.
EXPLANATION
Section 680(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada is a provision that allows for a judge of the court of appeal to exercise the powers of the court of appeal, provided that all parties involved consent to this arrangement. Essentially, this means that if all parties are agreeable to it, a single judge can perform the same functions as the entire court of appeal. This provision is significant because it can save time and resources for all parties involved in an appeal. It means that a single judge can hear and decide an appeal, rather than requiring a full panel of judges to be convened. By allowing for a more expedited appeals process, this provision can help to ensure that justice is served more efficiently. The ability for a judge to exercise the powers of the court of appeal is also significant because it allows for greater flexibility in the appeals process. Depending on the nature and complexity of the case at hand, a single judge may be better suited to hear the appeal than a full panel of judges. Allowing for this flexibility ensures that the most appropriate and effective approaches are taken in resolving appeals. Overall, Section 680(2) is an important provision in the Criminal Code of Canada that helps to streamline the appeals process and ensure that justice is served efficiently and effectively. By allowing for greater flexibility and expediency, this provision can help to ensure that the rights of all parties involved in a criminal case are upheld, while also ensuring that the legal system operates as smoothly as possible.
COMMENTARY
Section 680(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada grants the authority to a judge of the court of appeal to exercise the powers vested with the court under subsection (1), subject to the consent of the parties. This provision recognizes the role of a judge in the appellate process, enabling him or her to adjudicate on a case with the powers of the entire court, but with the consent of the involved parties. The purpose of Section 680(2) is to expedite the appellate process where possible, allowing for a more focused and streamlined approach. Before this section was implemented, parties usually had to wait for a full panel of three judges to hear an appeal, which could take up to several months. However, with the consent of the parties, a single judge could now preside over an appeal in a shorter time frame, which would allow justice to be dispensed more efficiently. One of the critical factors giving rise to this provision is the significant backlog of cases in the appellate courts. These backlogs have become a significant issue, and Section 680(2) provides a practical and timely mechanism for reducing these backlogs. With the large number of cases that come before appellate courts, the court system must strive to be more efficient, creating a fair appellate process that provides justice promptly and the efficient disposal of cases. However, the consent of the parties is a crucial element in invoking the powers of a single judge in the appellate process. It is essential to remember that the appellate process aims to provide a second chance at correcting errors or wrong judgments that have led to wrongful convictions. Any attempts to circumvent the appellate process could have a profound impact on an appellant's due process rights. Prosecutors may be opposed to the use of a single judge in the appellate process, fearing that judges may be inclined to overturn more decisions, particularly guilty verdicts. Since Section 680(2) requires the consent of the parties, it could either be viewed as violating an appellant's right to have his or her case heard by a panel of judges or potential witness intimidation to obtain the consent of the parties. Furthermore, some judges and appellants might feel that the use of a single judge is inherently unfair. This is because it invariably narrows the appeals process, leaving appellants with limited options to have their cases heard. It may also limit the sparring that takes place among appellate judges, making the final ruling more biased or less robust than if multiple judges had weighed in. In conclusion, the implementation of Section 680(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada is a laudable effort to ensure that the appellate process is efficient and streamlined. The use of a single judge to hear appeals could speed up the process in the courts and reduce the backlog of cases that rely on full panels' hearings. However, the consent of the parties must be in place before invoking this provision, thereby safeguarding the due-process rights of all litigants involved in the appeal process. The impact of this provision on the Canadian legal system remains to be seen, and its future application will be closely monitored.
STRATEGY
Section 680(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada provides an avenue for parties involved in an appeal process to consent to having the powers of the court of appeal exercised by a judge. This provision offers an alternative to having the entire appellate court hear arguments and make a decision. Several strategic considerations arise when dealing with this section of the Criminal Code, and several strategies can be employed to take advantage of this provision. The first strategic consideration is to assess the complexity of the case. If the case is straightforward and presents no significant legal challenges, the parties may opt to have a single judge hear the appeal. It is an efficient and cost-effective way to resolve the matter without going through the entire appellate process. However, if the case involves considerable legal hurdles, it is advisable to take the matter before a panel of judges to ensure a comprehensive review of all legal provisions. The second strategic consideration when dealing with section 680(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada is to analyze the parties involved. If the appellant and respondent have a good working relationship, they may find it in their best interest to have a single judge handle their case. It eliminates the need for both parties to present arguments and evidence before a panel, which can lead to tense moments and unnecessary delays. However, if the appellant and respondent have vastly different views on the matter, it may be better to present their case to a panel of judges. The third strategic consideration is to assess the consequences of the judgment. If the outcome of the appeal has significant ramifications for either party, it may be better to take the matter before a panel of judges. It ensures that a more thorough legal analysis is done, and the judgment is well-considered. In such instances, a single judge may not have the expertise or time to analyze the matter comprehensively. Finally, the timing of the appeal should be considered. If the matter is time-sensitive, and a quick resolution is necessary, having a single judge hear the appeal may be the best option. It eliminates delays that would result from assembling a panel of judges to hear the matter. However, if time is not a pressing matter, giving deference to the panel of judges may be advisable for a comprehensive analysis. In conclusion, section 680(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada provides a strategic option for the parties involved in an appeal. Several considerations need to be made before deciding whether to have a single judge or a panel of judges hear the matter. The complexity of the case, the relationship between the appellant and respondent, the potential consequences of the judgment, and the timing of the appeal are all influential factors. Careful consideration of these factors can help parties determine which strategy will best serve their interests.